Talk:Nick Fuentes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Feeding the troll

I don’t think that means what you think it does Dronebogus (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this guy really worth such a long article? He doesn't have a college degree, he's 24 years old, he's apparently never had a job, he's "noteworthy" only because he's good at publicizing himself by making provocative statements and generating outrage. He's never actually accomplished anything, and it's not even clear that any of his public pronouncements actually reflect any of his beliefs. The hypothesis that at every opportunity, he decides to say whatever will outrage the maximum number of people, explains most of his utterances. (The rest can be explained by the fact that he sometimes gets it wrong; we all make mistakes.) The article should describe him as a "self publicist", not a political commentator, and the length of the article should better reflect the significance of the subject, i.e. be considerably shortened. There is surely no point in quoting so many of his attempts at generating interest/controversy/conflict. On the other hand, there should be some information about his sources of income, since that's real information about him. Longitude2 (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Like every other subject on Wikipedia, Fuentes is described here as he is in the reliable sources, in content and in depth. We are not here to right great wrongs by trying to stick our heads in the sand regarding the impact of white nationalists or other loathsome people. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Do refrain from using the term 'loathsome people' as derogatory or insulting language to describe people, regardless of their beliefs or actions is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Based47 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

It is unclear from this article and its included references what exactly Fuentes has said regarding the Holocaust. The phrasing of this article should be changed to "Fuentes is claimed to be a holocaust denier by major news organizations such as NPR and CNN". There is no clear mention of his denial in any articles referenced.

There's a lot of smoke so there's probably a fire, but this article neglects to even search for it. PatrickOconnellCuisine (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You think that we need to include his direct quotes? Like this? That is unnecessary and risks promoting his fringe views. As the paragraph details, he is smart enough to not come out and directly say "the Holocaust didn't happen", but his groypers read between the lines. It's not just NPR and CNN, here's AJC, The Hill, The Atlantic, NYT, and even Fox News. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu on this. The subject doesn't have to have a direct quote denying the Holocaust. What is required is that multiple reliable sources identify him as such. We follow RSs not the "truth". --Malerooster (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny. I can actually provide a source of Fuentes saying that he believes 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It was a debate stream he had with the streamer Destiny.

However, there's not one quote of Fuentes saying the opposite. People only ever bring up the Cookie Monster joke which was - you've guessed it - a joke. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

May I see that source? Based47 (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's probably also important to point out what the term "Holocaust denier/denial" actually means, which is why people ask questions like this. It doesn't only mean someone who denies anything every happened, although that is one of the possibilities. It also covers a wide range of historical revisionism (or more correctly, historical negationism). Support of certain viewpoints falls within the bounds of what that term actually means. The twitter post that Muboshgu gave above is a perfect example: suggesting the number is much smaller that the accepted total, which falls squarely into what the term "holocaust denial" actually means. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of Holocaust denial

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fuentes has never denied the Holocaust happened. Unfortunately the extreme left have falsely branded him a denier, and this lie has been continually reprinted by the media. JackMcVitie (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC) “The anti-Christ is the Jewish state of Israel,” Fuentes says. Also, “I piss on your Talmud. Jews get the f@#$k out of America.” Fuentes does not believe that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. He figures “maybe 200,000-300,000 cookies.” (Cookies are baked in ovens, you see.) : (National Review) Zaathras (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Many Jews have condemned Israel over the years, and supported controlling immigration. The cookies video did not directly mention the Holocaust. (JackMcVitie (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) Making the reference to "200-300 thousand cookies" is a direct allusion to the Holocaust. Reliable sources are kinda keen on discerning when antisemitism is couched in jokes and sarcasm. Zaathras (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC) NPR, CNN, Politico, and even FOX News call Fuentes a "Holocaust denier". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Once someone is labelled as something other sources in the media often repeat the lie. The video about cookies is like when Michael Moore tried to use a satirical video of George W. Bush for a fictional "documentary". (JackMcVitie (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) Reliable sources fact-check, and even Fox News knows Fuentes is a Holocaust denier. Your Moore comparison makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC) It was clearly a satirical video about cooking. (JackMcVitie (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) In that "cooking" took the place of "killing Jews", yes. Very satirical. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Praised Hitler?

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Winston Churchill also praised Hitler, so why is this even noteworthy? JackMcVitie (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Allegedly, and if Churchill did praise Hitler, it was before the war. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Churchill praised Hitler as late as October 1937. What difference does it make if it was before the war? (JackMcVitie (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) "What difference does it make" regarding how we would judge Hitler in October 1937 vs. after he invaded much of Europe and killed at least 12 million people in death camps? Gee, I don't know... – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC) It was already well known by 1937 that Hitler was an anti-Zionist. The Soviet Union invaded Europe in 1939. Churchill prevented the Madagascar Plan. See why Jews bombed the British during World War II, and assassinated Lord Moyne after he prevented the Blood for Trucks deal in 1944. (JackMcVitie (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) Clearly this discussion will yield nothing but a waste of our time. Good day. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding some categories

Wouldn't it be appropriate to add categories such as neo-nazi to this article? I think so, since the alt-right is based in neo-nazism. Firekong1 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OVERCAT and WP:CATDEF. This article is already in several relevant categories, so adding more specific and redundant categories will not necessarily help readers.

Further, the article doesn't currently support this as a defining trait, although with new reliable sources or with an expansion of existing sources, that could change. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember several articles referring to him as a neo-nazi. I'll do my best to find them, but I must know if they'll be allowed on this article Firekong1 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Categorization, especially in a BLP, needs to be a defining characteristic. Refer to (and read) the links Grayfell noted, as well as WP:BLPCAT. ButlerBlog (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Nick Fuentes has multiple times publicly denounced the notion that he’s a white supremacist and has never explicitly said he’s a white supremacist. This is sincerely and truthfully misleading to have in the opening line to his wiki. 2601:183:C600:3970:30DC:C5EC:B49A:F936 (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources entirely independent of the topic/person say. The subject's objections have a place in the article, but what shapes the article are the independent sources. And independent sources routinely describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. So too will Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

He would deny it, wouldn't he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial / "Known for: Holocaust denial"

That Nick Fuentes denies the Holocaust has been questioned before (with reference to this stream where he clarifies at 1:11:30 that he does believe that six million people were killed during the Holocaust). While I do think this warrants for changing the characterisation of Mr. Fuentes as either "jokingly denying the Holocaust" or even "having jokingly denied the Holocaust", I get that for whatever reason people here are hesitant to accept Mr. Fuentes' very own testimony on his personal beliefs as a reliable source for information on his personal beliefs.

What I want to suggest instead is that one should at least correct the phrasing "known for" in the same sentence. It should either read "[He is] accused of denying the Holocaust" or "[He is] said to deny the Holocaust". That he is "known for denying the Holocaust", implying that he is famous for denying the Holocaust or that Holocaust denial is central to his public identity (as would be the case for, say, David Irving) is certainly not warranted even by the cited sources. For the same reason, "Holocaust denial" should be removed from the "Known for" entry in the infobox on Mr. Fuentes. 2001:16B8:1808:3E00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the reliable sources and get back to us with what he's most known for. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? I think it's fair to have "Policital commentary" and "Founder of the Groypers" listed and maybe also that he's known for "holding antisemitic views". I don't have an issue with this. I don't suggest to change this nor do I suggest to add something. Does it have to be a three-item list? (In that case, I would argue he is nowadays most known for being associated with Ye and would promptly find you some reliable sources for that.)

Again: In the cited sources, it is only mentioned that Nick Fuentes has denied the Holocaust; that does by no means mean that he is "known for" it. Saying so is blatantly inaccurate. I merely suggest to remove this and this only. Of course I can't quote you anything that says "he is not known for being a Holocaust denier", so I'm not sure what you want here. 2001:16B8:185C:1600:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and since I found you refering to WP:MANDY in the proposal above this one, let me quote from this: »If X is accused of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the error bars around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist".« This is fully in line with what I suggest.

It goes on to say that »Most importantly, if the allegation is widely supported by reliable sources but the denial exists only in X's own words, then the denial is not compelling or significant per Hitchens' razor.« However, as mentioned before, none of the cited sources even states that Nick Fuentes is known for denying the Holocaust, instead they only state that he has denied the Holocaust and at most call him a Holocaust denier for this. Clearly, there's a grave difference between being accused of denying the Holocaust (while being on record contradicting this) and being known for denying the Holocaust, as laid out before in my first post in this thread.

I furthermore even challenge the notion that the cited sources widely support that Nick Fuentes is denying the Holocaust (as opposed to is being known for doing so, which they don't even claim). Even the source by the Anti-Defamation League, the only cited source to give a reference for the accusation, qualifies its accusation, saying he "“jokingly” denied the Holocaust" (implying it comes off as a joke, but can be seen as portraying an actual belief). Except for the source by Mother Jones that quotes the same passage referenced by ADL, no other source seems to support the claim that Nick Fuentes is a Holocaust denier, they just call him that. This clearly does not count as "widely supported". Hence, one cannot claim that it is widely supported by sources, that Mr. Fuentes is denying the Holocaust, let alone that he is known for doing so, which is not even claimed by the sources.

As per WP:BLP and WP:MANDY, one should therefore indeed frame the statement about Mr. Fuentes' Holocaust denial as an accusation, precisely as I have suggested. 2001:16B8:185C:1600:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and I hope someone with authority gives this the consideration it deserves. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fuentes' denial is already noted, via the ...calling his monologue a "lampoon" line. Zaathras (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I’m not arguing for including his contradiction (which I also think is warranted), but, as I have tried to clarify several times, for changing the characterisation of Nick Fuentes from being "known for denying the Holocaust" to being "accused of denying the Holocaust". 2001:16B8:182C:5F00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not going to do that, as his Holocaust denialism is a fact. Zaathras (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite argue that. If you ask me, I cannot judge on Mr. Fuentes' personal beliefs, but he clearly seems to play with Holocaust denial, probably pandering to his audience, while also contradicting the denial; whether he is in his own mind actually denying the Holocaust or not is beyond me. But who cares about my personal opinion?

To a neutral observer, one can only say that he jokes about the Holocaust. The media seems to interpret this as actual Holocaust denial, which is a fair interpretation, but it is an interpretation.

Anyway, here at Wikipedia we stick to what news media say. But, given that Holocaust denial is a grave accusation (here in Germany it has been the only exception to our Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit, freedom of voicing opinions, and so consists a crime – and I reckon that you could easily sue anyone for libel when they call you a Holocaust denier on such a flimsy basis, we take this stuff seriously), Wikipedia really should do a tad better than that, that is to say: be a tad more careful than the news media, as per WP:BLP , saying Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively. So the denial should be framed as an accusation.

Again, if you look at the sources you do not that the claim of Holocaust denial is substantiated except for Mother Jones and ADL, where they quote the distasteful joke and so qualify the accusation of Holocaust denial as "jokingly".

Not only does the article, as it is, violates the call for conservative writing, it even goes beyond what is claimed in the cited sources by saying he is "known for" Holocaust denial, instead of "accused of". Even if you successfully had argued (instead of just proclaimed) that Mr. Fuentes' Holocaust denial "is a fact", this has no bearing on whether this article should say he is known for it. I stand by my argumentation, the article should change. 2001:16B8:188D:BB00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You've left off the last part of that MANDY paragraph: Most importantly, if the allegation is widely supported by reliable sources but the denial exists only in X's own words, then the denial is not compelling or significant per Hitchens' razor. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Haha, no, I specifically quoted that, too, and argued how it does not apply in several ways. Please read my entire post. 2001:16B8:182C:5F00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(And by the way, I have two further arguments supporting my position that Mr. Fuentes' Holocaust denial should be framed as an accusation. I can present them to you should that matter. I didn't want to lay out all in one post so not to overwhelm you with arguments. We can go through them one by one.) 2001:16B8:182C:5F00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My advice would be to save your breath and move on, as it won't be changing. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not? I give good arguments for why it should change. 2001:16B8:188D:BB00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't. Zaathras (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I have. You just have not engaged with my arguments so far but ignored them instead. I invite you to read my argumentation and point out how it fails if you think so instead of just claiming it so. My understanding has been that this is how discussion on talk pages is supposed to go. 2001:16B8:188D:BB00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fuentes is indeed "widely known" for denying the Holocaust. That's why RS that talk about him lead with "who denied the Holocaust" or "Holocaust denier" as their first descriptor. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I contest that this is why they talk about him that way. (My guess is that they have heard about this through ADL whose mission is to point out things like this; so news media people look up Nick Fuentes because they don't know who he is, they see ADL's post on him where they find the accusation of Holocaust denial, which is politically relevant, so they go for it – that's what's probably going on).

What you are doing here is justifying claims in a biography of a living person by assuming reasons for how the media talk about someone. That is clearly not cautious/conservative and contradicts principles of writing layed out in WP:BLP. 2001:16B8:188D:BB00:8219:34FF:FE54:18ED (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah you did quote the "widely supported" sentence. If your posts are in the tl;dr arena, they may get skimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

Please change "American white supremacist" to "American Nationalist" 108.51.47.142 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No. Why would we do that? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Under the "Deplatforming" column, in the lines regarding Twitter, I believe adding "However, as of January 24, 2022, his account has been reinstated due to the reinstatement of many other suspended Twitter accounts under Elon Musk I would like to add that his account is now suspended again. Condabest (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

No-fly listing/threatening a flight attendant

The Daily Beast reported that Nick Fuentes, who previously exclaimed he was no-fly listed because of political retaliation for his views and attending the Jan 6 insurrection, actually threatened a flight attended, which resulted in him being expelled from flight services. Would like to add a quick blurb in the sentence in 5.1 to address this.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-reason-nick-fuentes-was-put-on-the-no-fly-list NotBrandonJones (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYBEAST; they're an "online tabloid", and I don't believe we can use any "exclusive" Daily Beast reporting in biographies of living persons. Would support inclusion if more reliable sourcing can be found. DFlhb (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Formal Request For Article removal.

Fuentes is not as relevant as I thought or remember. Requesting to have his page deleted. I fail to understand just how giving a white supremacist nobody a platform for publicity on this wiki is essentially window-dressing for a nothing-burger, and potentially dangerous as well as counter-productive to the aims of this wiki. I feel as if we're giving him a free soapbox to racism whereas if he didnt have an article he'd rightfully fade into irrelevancy.128.119.201.49 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Removal" means "deletion" and you're free to nominate this for deletion via WP:AFD, but I can tell you that it will be kept because he meets the general notability guideline. We won't delete the article just to right the great wrong that is white supremacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

White supremacist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nick Fuentes isn't a white supremacist. If he is then he is also an Asian supremacist, a Jewish supremacist and a Black supremacist. He is a Christian so he doesn't view any race as the supreme race. JosephMoore123 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone who is quoted as saying that the "white demographic core" is central to American identity kinda fits the white supremacy category. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

He says that when country loses a majority it goes to hell, he does not hate or dislike any other race the reason he says that is because a majority in a country is essential or the country becomes destroyed. 74.192.44.156 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like white supremacy, and I'm sure the WP:RS would point that out too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

white supremacy is when you think whites are superior to other races. Wanting whites to stay the majority demographic does not inherently imply the former Maxwatermelon (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying "Nazism was just a bunch of Caucasians concerned about the increase in demographics of Jews". So, yea, white supremacy does encompass White genocide conspiracy theory, too. Zaathras (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There might be overlap between people that hold these beliefs, but that doesn’t make them mutually inclusive.

It’s more like me using the standard definition of Nazism, then accusing someone of being a Nazi for holding a totally distinct belief. Maxwatermelon (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't trump reliable sources, so, I think we're done here. Zaathras (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

So according to this people rhetoric if israel want to keep a Jewish majority and not be replaced by arabs and sub saharan africans (they even sterilized them) this is Jewish supremacy? Is just an ethnic group not wanting to be replaced.. 79.115.167.135 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe that keeping your demographic is “white supremacy “ the same how keeping korea or japan or israel demographics is not asian/Jewish supremacy. This is a pure reaction of surviving. 79.115.167.135 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism. Zaathras (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This person seems ideologically motivated and certainly not interested in a fruitful discussion. Best to ignore him 89.205.132.97 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Bit weird to engage someone using personal opinions, and then use “reliable sources” as a get out jail free card when someone deconstructs your opinion Maxwatermelon (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Child bride comments

Fuentes has recently come out in favor of 30-year-old men seeking child brides. He also says that parents should arrange marriages for their underage children, and that this is a form of “grooming” which he actually supports. This is pretty shocking especially since he and other right-wingers are constantly accusing progressives and mainstream society of being groomers. Fuentes himself has made it clear he is only against child molestation when the other side does it. [1] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:3D99 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that angrywhitemen(dot)org counts as a reliable source that establishes due weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacy

You can’t be a Christian and a white supremacist. White identity isn’t the same as white supremacy. Believing America would be worse because of a minority white demographic is because of IQ statistics and the identity of those who founded America. He admits Jews and Asians have high IQs. Is he now a Jewish supremacist or an Asian supremacist. No. JosephMoore123 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"White Supremacist Ideas Have Historical Roots In U.S. Christianity" NPR – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You still haven’t proven that Nick is a white supremacist though, and where in the bible does it say whites are the supreme race. Are all white Americans that are Christians now white supremacists? JosephMoore123 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You said You can’t be a Christian and a white supremacist which I demonstrated is false. Proof of "Nick" being a white supremacist are the RS in this article and talk page that refer to him as such. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You wouldn’t really be a Christian if you were a white supremacist because it contradicts the the teaching in the bible about Jesus dying for everyone’s sins “Neither gentile, nor Jew”, etc. what quote shows him specifically saying whites are the supreme race? JosephMoore123 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m requesting that the words “white supremacist” should be removed from the Wikipedia article because it’s misleading. You could at least change it to white loyalist or white identitarian JosephMoore123 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that white supremacy and the Christian Bible are incompatible. And yet... [2][3][4][5] We will continue to refer to Fuentes as the sources do, I don't think I've ever seen the phrases white loyalist or white identitarian before. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They do exist and are used in other Wikipedia articles, the sources referring to him as a white supremacist are irrelevant if there’s no actual evidence that he is specifically a white supremacist JosephMoore123 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You should watch Nick’s interview on No Jumper if you want to know his views on white supremacy, he talks about at the start JosephMoore123 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

the sources referring to him as a white supremacist are irrelevant Actually, no, they are quite relevant. That is how the Wikipedia works, sources report, we use the reporting to support the article content. Zaathras (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

When has he ever said whites are the supreme race though? JosephMoore123 (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably whenever he opens his mouth? Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on this talk page, to the point that there's a FAQ about it right at the top of the page. Fuentes is described as a white supremacist because reliable sources widely describe him as such. Feel free to provide contradictory WP:RS if you have them, but we don't need to all give our personal opinions on whether Fuentes is a white supremacist every time a new talk page discussion is opened. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You can keep saying that “the sources refer to him as such” but why should that hold any weight if these sources can’t provide any ACTUAL evidence that he’s a white supremacist? JosephMoore123 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles are based on what is widely published in reliable sources. If you have a concern with the reliability of any of the sources, feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN, but this is supported by some of the most reliable news publications available (see WP:RSP for past discussions on that point). That they don't meet your arbitrary definition of "proof" is frankly your problem, not Wikipedia's. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If they can’t provide proof which isn’t arbitrary but objective (since we’re discussing whether or not he believes that whites are the supreme race which is very specific) then how the fuck is it reliable? What makes it reliable? Because YOU said so? JosephMoore123 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources are the proof. Kanye West literally said "I am a Nazi" and yet there are people posting on Talk:Kanye West to deny that he said that. The goalposts are always getting moved. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Kanye’s words, not Nick’s JosephMoore123 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, feel free to review the many discussions achieving consensus that the NYT, Bloomberg, etc. are reliable sources. It's all linked from WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they’re reliable in other things but you still haven’t shown me a quote so I’m guessing you all just assume he’s a white supremacist and that lie will remain in the article. Whatever I’m done JosephMoore123 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If the sources told you 2 + 2 = 5 you’d believe it JosephMoore123 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but the entire article was spent discrediting Nick’s character. There’s clearly an agenda. This goes for every right wing conspiracy theorist or conspiracy theory The people who edit the article smear them the entire time JosephMoore123 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacist

Why is a 'White Supremacist' saying he loves black people and works for Kanye West, who is black? Obviously needs to be removed. 88.104.21.240 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So that IP editors like you have enough plausible deniability to come here to claim that he's not a white supremacist. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 2A00:23C7:3086:5D01:BD3F:D020:C4F6:8F72 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That is true, hmmm... Xvfumes (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Fuentes is at it again

• White Supremacist Nick Fuentes Calls for “Holy War” Against Jews
• Antisemite Nick Fuentes: 'We will make them die in the holy war'

Zaathras (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Re-adding White Nationalism in the Lead?

If we have the white supremacist descriptor in the first sentence, why is white nationalist no longer in it as well? It was there beforehand but removed as the sentence had become too long. The sentence has since become even shorter with less descriptors, so this reasoning doesn't really hold up anymore. I bring this up as, at least from my understanding, his white nationalist views are more predominant than his white supremacist ones, as his main political goal (according to RS) is the establishment of a state for only white people, which is obviously white nationalism. Furthermore, it is in the infobox. Sorry if this has already been brought up here, but I don't have time to read a whole talk page of groyper IP users trying to get their leader some better optics and the discussion surrounding it haha. LVMH11 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"White nationalism" is in the lede, it's just not in the first paragraph. I think this is fine.

Per White nationalism#History and usage the term "white nationalism" was popularized by white supremacists for PR purposes, and in practice the two terms are mostly interchangeable. The current first paragraph is nice and succinct. I don't think moving "white nationalist" up higher would be particularly helpful to readers' understand of the topic of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I had no idea that was the original meaning of the term, quite interesting. LVMH11 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If white nationalism in your vision equal white supremacy (is not). This mean that Zionism(Jewish nationalism) is Jewish supremacy (is not) or Japenese supremacy? 79.115.167.135 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism arguments carry no weight here. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read the pages you link before posting. Pointing out inconsistent logic is not whataboutism. Presumably you understand that Zionism is not the same as Jewish supremacy. Consequently, you should also be capable of understanding the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy. Additionally, your claim that the term "was popularized by white supremacists for PR purposes" is the opinion of a single DHS employee, and the CNN source provides no justification for his opinion other than that he first saw the term in 'white supremacy literature', which itself is begging the question -- if the literature refers to its own belief system as 'white nationalism', then it is 'white nationalist literature', and to call it 'white supremacy literature' is to take as a given that there is no difference (or to not understand the difference).

In that same section you linked, it's also mentioned that some sociologists consider the two distinct. If this were an uncontroversial opinion, we wouldn't have separate pages for White nationalism and White supremacy that contain substantially different descriptions. I suggest that you attempt to build a consensus to merge those two pages together if you truly believe them identical. Until that point, we should assume that the ideologies are separate. It's borderline libelous to describe him as 'white supremacist' anywhere on this page given the clear and concise distinction between the two ideologies, with no evidence for him being 'supremacist' except news articles that do not make a distinction between the terms. From my perspective, referring to one with white nationalist beliefs as 'white supremacist' is no less biased than referring to a pro-abortion person as 'baby killer' (or an anti-abortion person as 'misogynist'); yes, there are people who believe one necessarily implies the other, but it is a matter of opinion rather than fact, regardless of how many biased sources are cited using the same terminology. At the very least, one of these should be added:

About Category:Nick Fuentes/Archive 3 and related categories: This category's scope contains articles about White supremacy, which may be a contentious label.

--Voskresno (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voskresno What you call logic we call "Original research", WP:NOR. And logic in any case doesn't apply to words or phrases. Antisemitic does not mean anti all semites, eg Arabs, it means anti-Jews. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

Lowi2TheCal (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Aaaaaaaaddddddddddfffffee.webp

change the main image to this image

 Not done: That photo is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Around the end of the “Women’s rights” section, add “He is also on record saying that he believes neither in the concept of an age of consent or the right of spouses to refuse sex, proclaiming that they are obligated to have it whenever the other wants and that there is no such thing as marital rape” or something semantically equivalent. Primal Groudon (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Place of birth

The article cites multiple sources (#3, 6, 7, 8), none of which say he was born in Illinois. Can anyone find a reliable source for place of birth? Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

In the Early and personal life:

Change the 2nd paragraph from:

According to Fuentes, he is of Mexican descent via his paternal ancestors and is Catholic. (keep the 2 references)

To:

Fuentes identifies as Italian and was raised in that culture. He stated that his mother is of Italian descent, while his father is of Irish and Mexican descent. Fuentes is Catholic. (add previous 2 references)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Early and personal Life

This article falsely claims he did not continue his education after 2017. According to his House Deposition, he completed an Associates Degree from College of Dupage in 2019. This should be updated. https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20220216_Nicholas%20J.%20Fuentes.pdf Jingle38 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – this may be true, but a deposition is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. WP:BLPPRIMARY states: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Primary sources of this nature are unreliable because the individual can claim anything they like, see WP:WPNOTRS. If there are any secondary source publications that report on the Dupage degree, it can be included then. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what secondary source you expect would be reporting on him getting a degree from College of Dupage, because it's not particuarly newsworthy information. However, the problem is that the article states "he did not continue his education" which is probably false information based on the best available information. I don't think Wikipedia should have blatantly false information, even if the best alternative source is a congressional testimony. Jingle38 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Jingle38, if it's not in a secondary source, well--then really it shouldn't be here. A deposition doesn't count; those are his own words. I tweaked the sentence, nonetheless. I would, however, like for you to tone it down a bit, all this "falsely claims" and "blatantly false information". We're all volunteers here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No sources

In the beginning of the article it says "Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right[5] political commentator and live streamer who is known for his white supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, and islamophobic views." No sources in this Wikipedia article say he's known for homophobic, Islam phobic, or misogynistic content. The sources only say he's known for anti-Semitism. This article should get fixed AwesomeJewishMan446 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Continue reading the article beyond the lead, including Nick Fuentes#Political views. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead does not require citation if it is cited in the body. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything about hating Muslims. Why is Islamophobia on the lead? AwesomeJewishMan446 (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also just because he doesn't agree with feminists, that doesn't mean he's misogynistic. What happened to providing sources in articles. And this article should mention how Nick Fuentes likes Hitler AwesomeJewishMan446 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you're surprised to learn this was a sock account of a troll. Muboshgu, you? Drmies (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Inconceivable! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Nick Fuentes is 5’5” 24.54.162.53 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided a source to support this claim. Even if provided, it still would likely not merit inclusion. This is a political pundit, not a basketball star. Zaathras (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New line anywhere - Fuentes calls for "execution/death penalty/annihilation of non-christians/jewish peoples"

Hello,

The title says it all, and I do not wish, nor want to explain it further due to the ridiculousness absurdity and outlandishness of it all. Just read the article and social media video I have taken the liberty to include below.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nick-fuentes-jews-executed-1234925748/

https://twitter.com/RepRaskin/status/1734720913713635493 2601:601:A400:D4A0:DDC2:8CE4:C53B:22AB (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To be frank, this statement is so normal coming out of Fuentes that it might not even warrant a mention. I added it anyways. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is indubitably unfortunate that it is so now adays if I may say. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:DDAC:8D17:DB47:A138 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Image for the article

Hey, just wondering if there's any particular reason for why the image for this article is so crappy. Every other member of his "clique" (e.g. Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Richard Spencer) has a better picture on their article. Do we not have higher quality pictures to use? Liskers (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, it’s because it’s a Creative Commons image from a YouTube video (which itself was CC 3.0). Until somebody uploads a better image to wikimedia commons, it will be used. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Please add the following text to the January 6 section (please note that <ref name=":6"> is not a typo, I am citing a source that is already in the article):

"According to several media outlets, Fuentes was part of the mob that attacked the Capitol. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Fuentes was "visible in both livestreams and images amidst a mob of pro-Trump insurrectionists...wearing what appears to be a VIP badge". Although he did not enter the building, he allegedly shouted encouragement for the rioters to "keep moving towards the Capitol" and that they were "taking the Capitol back".<ref name=":6"> Fuentes himself admitted being present during the attack but denied criminal conduct."

5.61.122.219 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 5.61.122.219 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Classification as a neo nazi

Nick Fuentes is classified as a neo nazi in some of the sourced articles in the page and has associated with other neo Nazis, such as Richard Spencer. He seems eligible for the category. Firekong1 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

The sentence saying “The FBI began an investigation as to whether any of this money went toward the financing of illegal acts, such as the storming of the U.S. Capitol,” should be changed. Fuentes himself never did anything illegal and never went into the capital. He has stated that he told others to not go in as well. Fuentes was not charged or prosecuted for anything that happened on January 6th. Similarly, the sentence “ Although he did not enter the building, he allegedly shouted encouragement for the rioters to "keep moving towards the Capitol" and that they were "taking the Capitol back,” should be changed. There is no proof he said this, the ADl is merely speculating. Fuentes himself has claimed he did not tell others to go in. Fuentes has also never spread misinformation about Covid, everything he has concretely claimed has been proven correct. 45.23.111.209 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Under political views > Catholic integralism and Christian nationalism, in the second paragraph, change “Fuentes has described himself is a reactionary who supports” to “Fuentes has described himself as a reactionary who supports” Smurr7 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Hi @Domesticenginerd: Why did you revert multiple edits of mine — including copyedits — with no summary? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GorillaWarfare: I reverted revert because you removed good content due to your own biases (which is evident in your professional history). I added facts - reinstatement on X (formerly known as Twitter) and also added a more neutral introduction, while still giving space to the criticism. As I reverted, I added notes as I was able. --domesticenginerd 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You reverted far more than the single edit you've identified (and as Muboshgu has pointed out, you inappropriately used rollback to do so). Can you clarify whether your concern is specifically with this revert or with the three other edits I made? And can you please elaborate on this "your own biases (which is evident in your professional history)" comment? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you are watering down sourced content, and now making value judgments on contributors rather than sticking to content. You should stop edit warring right now and only make changes with consensus to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an image change for Nick Fuentes

I am requesting that the image shown for Nick Fuentes be changed. It is currently a low quality screenshot. There is an image photographed by Nicole Hester of Fuentes at a rally, which seems to me as a better image to portray the subject.

Nick_Fuentes_at_a_rally_in_the_Lansing_Capitol.jpg

Regards. Heatyeet (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done – thanks for your suggestion. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit due to the image in question being ripped straight from the article it sourced, which does not license the image under Public Domain. @Heatyeet, I recommend you look into WP:IUP and image licensing guidelines before uploading images to the project. @Zenomonoz, I understand that you were just trying to fulfill the request but please make sure to double-check images submitted in edit requests to ensure whether they fit copyright guidelines or not. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I would never have approved that change had I checked. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What can I do to get the image licensed properly? Heatyeet (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Get the owner of the license to agree to release it to the public domain. If it's a photo from a major agency like Getty or AP, that won't happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The photo is by an independent photographer by the name of Nicole Hester. How can I get her to release it? Heatyeet (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Reach out to her directly to request that she release it via creative commons. If she agrees, great. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Heatyeet Chances are, you are not going to be able to get agency or independent photographers to freely license the images they take for journalists. I recommend looking at this page for general licensing guidelines for Wikimedia Commons. B3251 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

Uglytriangle999 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I assume you are asking for this template, which you created, to be added.

Right now, Fuentes, Trump, and William Dudley Pelley are the only articles specific to this template. That isn't enough to bother with for a "series". Neither Pelley nor Trump's article specifically describes either man as a "Christian nationalist", which raises WP:UNDUE and WP:OR issues. It's also odd to imply that these three people are comparable in significance, since Pelley was obscure and politically impotent. Adding the template would be premature, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Islamophobic

In the lead it says Nick is Islamophobic. I don't think Nick Fuentes is Islamophobic. And I checked, none of the sources say that. Also I find it weird how later in this article it says Nick praised religious and political aspects of the Taliban when they're an islamist government. And isn't Nick friends with Muslim Internet personality Sneako? and I think I saw a Nick clip on Twitter where Nick defended Islam or something. I think islamophobic should be removed. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

heres a clip on Twitter where Nick says "I love Muslims" https://x.com/vetementsiaga/status/1563153697063940096?t=7_RbhdEI_k30_cqcq9mNEQ&s=09 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's Nick going on another ant-semetic rant defending Muslims. https://x.com/goyabeangroyper/status/1747075246488744329?t=ssqambJtSX_0lFPzEjjNqg&s=09 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Nick is bad, but since I recently saw on twitter clips of him defending Islam and Muslims, I think "islamophobic" should be removed from the lead. Not because I like Nick, but because I think wikipedia shouldn't be misleading. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainly summarizes reliable, independent sources. Here is one source which explains this:

• Miller, Christopher (September 24, 2021). "America's Far-Right Extremists Are Drawing Inspiration From The Taliban's Victory In Afghanistan". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved November 27, 2022.

Per that source: "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes for recruitment and propaganda, making his support for the Taliban's militant Islamist worldview all the more intriguing."

Avoid cherry-picking from primary sources. His occasional willingness to defend some Muslims, in some situations, proves nothing at all. Grayfell (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It says "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes". It doesn't say "by fuentes", it says "white nationalists like Fuentes." So the source is saying white nationlist like him are islamophobic, but it doesn't say fuentes directly. Is there a source in this article that says Nick attacked Muslims, insulted them, etc. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell also since you even admitted he defends Muslims, if there's no sources that directly say he's islamophobic, I think it's reasonable to remove Islamophobic or only keep it in the infobox. I haven't really seen any clips of him targeting Muslims, if he is islamophobic, that shouldn't be in the lead because it's not that significant since 99% of the time he says positive things about Muslims, from at least the clips I've seen on Twitter/X HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The clips you have seen are not reliable sources, and for you to select an arbitrary sample of clips, based on your own personally viewing habits, is original research. His willingness to exploit the Israel–Hamas war for attention is as unsurprising as it is transparent, and reliable sources are unlikely to fall for it. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Is English your primary language? "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes" is stating that white nationalists are weaponizing Islamophobia, and states very plainly that Fuentes is an example of a white nationalist that does this. This is not a difficult sentence to parse. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras it says "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes". It says White nationalists like him, but it doesnt say him specifically. When it says "white nationalists like him", they're talking about other white nationslists who are racist and anti-semetic but it doesn't say him specificall. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell I didn't do original research. The clips popped up on my twitter feed without me searching for them. Also how do you know he's exploiting the Israel-Hamas war? He probably is, but how do you know that? Is it because you're also doing origami research? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• original (sorry I didn't mean to say "origami research" lol) HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since There's no sources that say "Nick Fuentes is islamophobic", and since this article says "he praised the Taliban" which is an Islamist group. And since in one source linked in this article which is this https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-750425, that says Nick and sneako (a popular Muslim YouTuber) did a show together. And since Nick said on Twitter "He loved Muslims", even though that's not a reliable source, that should be more convincing that yeah this is a little misleading when this article says he's islamophobic. A source saying "White nationalists like Fuentes is weaponizing islamophobia" isn't say Nick is, it's saying other white nationlists like him are. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your comments are original research, and yes, the source is talking about Fuentes specifically.

What twitter chooses to recommend you is still arbitrary and selective. Twitter is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, but it's also not a credible source of information in general. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying i have to have a reliable source to remove Islamophobia, that says Nick loves or praises Muslims? For you shouldn't there also be a reliable source that says Nick Hates Muslims. I still can't find that source. All I see is "White nationlists similar to Nick weaponize islamophobia" but there's still no sources that calls him islamophobic specifically. I might end this conversation here because I hate Nick and he's anti-semitic. The only reason I cared was because I don't think articles should be misleading, but maybe it's not. You know best since you've been on this website longer than me. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your but it doesnt say him specifically is a false statement. Whether your are deliberately making a false statement or it is false out of a lack of understanding of the subject matter is academic. We will not be altering text in this article based on your incorrect analysis. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

How is my statement false? It says "White nationlists like Fuentes weaponize islamophobia". It doesn't say Nick does, it says white nationalists like him do. "White nationlists like Fuentes weaponize islamophobia" not "Fuentes weaponizes islamophobia". It says white nationlists like him, but it doesn't say him specifically. What's false? In the source it's talking about other white nationlists similar to Nick with racist and anti-semetic views who weaponizes islamophobia. Bro, I have no idea how you interpreted my message as false. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said I'm going to end the conversation because it's extremely pointless. I hate arguing with people. @Zaathras Btw I clicked on your account and saw that you're a fellow Jew :) sorry for frustrating you guys. Have a great day HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

someone remove the damn neo-nazi title from his name BoomNick2007 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: He is one, and he is described that way by reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk if its appropriate to have in the opening sentence so I moved it down a bit --FMSky (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)